Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Intel® Core™2 Quad: 45 nm vs. 65 nm technology.

  1. #1
    Senior Member Canew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    2,229

    Default Intel® Core™2 Quad: 45 nm vs. 65 nm technology.

    As per the title above, what is the difference to a lay-man user, other being the 45 nm being more expensive, can expect to experience?

    As an example, there are 2 desktops that I saw, all the other specs are essentially the same (only 1GB of DDR II RAM difference between the two) except:

    CPU 1: Intel® Core™2 Quad processor Q6700 (2.66GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 8MB L2 Cache) - 65 nm.
    CPU 2: Intel® Core™2 Quad processor Q9300 (2.5GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 6MB L2 Cache) - 45 nm.

    The difference is $300.

    What advantage does the 45 nm can the user expect to gain? Is $300 worth the money to jump to the 45 nm bandwagon?

    Thanks for all replies/comments.

  2. #2

    Default Re: Intel® Core™2 Quad: 45 nm vs. 65 nm technology.

    The 45nm is the newer generation of Core 2 Processor. 65nm is basically aging now so not really advisable to get them.
    Canon EOS 30D , EF 17-40mm F4L USM , EF-S 55-250mm F/4-5.6 IS

  3. #3
    Senior Member Canew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    2,229

    Default Re: Intel® Core™2 Quad: 45 nm vs. 65 nm technology.

    eosdigital, thanks for the reply.

    But what tangible improvements will the 45 nm technology bring? Faster? I heard that it will improve on the power consumption.

  4. #4

    Default Re: Intel® Core™2 Quad: 45 nm vs. 65 nm technology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Canew View Post
    eosdigital, thanks for the reply.

    But what tangible improvements will the 45 nm technology bring? Faster? I heard that it will improve on the power consumption.
    Good question
    Actually the whole idea of going to smaller lines is that
    it enable the maker to squeeze more chip in each platter
    but it actually increase the heat since the "conductor"
    are smaller. etc
    Of course there are other factors etc.

    For the users, it should translate to lower prices
    not higher........


    in your case, the comparision is in favour of 65nm since it has more L2 cache
    and the system, you mentioned has 1GB RAM extra.

    I think more RAM is better than a few gigahertz more.
    I think the bargain is 65nm system

  5. #5
    Senior Member Canew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    2,229

    Default Re: Intel® Core™2 Quad: 45 nm vs. 65 nm technology.

    lightrules, thanks for you comment.

    As for the RAM, I think I did not make myself clear. Here is the re-illustration:

    CPU 1: Intel® Core™2 Quad processor Q6700 (2.66GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 8MB L2 Cache), 2GB DDR II RAM - 65 nm.
    CPU 2: Intel® Core™2 Quad processor Q9300 (2.5GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 6MB L2 Cache), 3GB DDR II RAM - 45 nm.

    How does the picture look like now, lightrules?

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    KFC
    Posts
    1,777

    Default Re: Intel® Core™2 Quad: 45 nm vs. 65 nm technology.

    frankly, the main BIG difference is because one is a NEW technology while the q6600 is of the older tech.

    Intel always make sure u pay ur ass off to buy their newest tech, even if the performance doesnt really justify that much.

    my advice would be that u get the q6700, at the moment the price difference is crap to me.

    anyway, think abt it u get a higher speed 2.6ghz compared to 2.5 and the more important thing is the L2 cache is 8mb compared to a weeny 6mb. as for fsb, the impact on performance is not that big. well the 45 may run cooler than the 65 but heck it doesnt impact performance much unless u oc

    btw, can u refer me to where u see the $300 price difference? i went to sim lim ydae and the price difference in the price list is at most $100+....
    Last edited by kcuf2; 24th August 2008 at 10:37 PM.
    09 Oct 09 officially marks the date I become a canon convert.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Canew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    2,229

    Default Re: Intel® Core™2 Quad: 45 nm vs. 65 nm technology.

    kcuf2, thanks for your comments. Very insightful indeed.

    Yeah, the numbers of the FSB sure looked a lot better for the Q9300. But I don't overclock my stuff. I run them stock, so heat should be manageable.

  8. #8

    Default Re: Intel® Core™2 Quad: 45 nm vs. 65 nm technology.

    Performance of Q9300 vs Q6600:

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...0_4.html#sect0

    There are some performance gain for the 45nm chip..

    Power consumption wise, 45nm chip also more economical:

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._13.html#sect0

    For your reference..

  9. #9
    Senior Member Big Kahuna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    2,127

    Default Re: Intel® Core™2 Quad: 45 nm vs. 65 nm technology.

    45nm chip should runs cooler and uses less power.....it should be move overclockable(theorically) if you are into overclocking

  10. #10

    Default Re: Intel® Core™2 Quad: 45 nm vs. 65 nm technology.

    By the way, bigger cache does not neccessary means better performance.

    As an example, a new-generation Penryn Core 2 with 3MB L2 cache can already outperform the older generation Merom Core 2 with 4MB L2's
    Canon EOS 30D , EF 17-40mm F4L USM , EF-S 55-250mm F/4-5.6 IS

  11. #11
    Senior Member Canew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    2,229

    Default Re: Intel® Core™2 Quad: 45 nm vs. 65 nm technology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kongo View Post
    Performance of Q9300 vs Q6600:

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...0_4.html#sect0

    There are some performance gain for the 45nm chip..

    Power consumption wise, 45nm chip also more economical:

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu..._13.html#sect0

    For your reference..
    Thanks for the links Kongo, very informative. In the article, it was mentioned that the Core 2 Duo was able to beat the Core 2 Quad, as most programs are not optimised for quad cores. A point to ponder upon.

  12. #12

    Default Re: Intel® Core™2 Quad: 45 nm vs. 65 nm technology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Canew View Post
    lightrules, thanks for you comment.

    As for the RAM, I think I did not make myself clear. Here is the re-illustration:

    CPU 1: Intel® Core™2 Quad processor Q6700 (2.66GHz, 1066MHz FSB, 8MB L2 Cache), 2GB DDR II RAM - 65 nm.
    CPU 2: Intel® Core™2 Quad processor Q9300 (2.5GHz, 1333MHz FSB, 6MB L2 Cache), 3GB DDR II RAM - 45 nm.

    How does the picture look like now, lightrules?

    hmmm...........if its $300 more, then CPU1 is a better buy, since with that money, you could add more ram on your own...maybe more than 4Gb RAM ???

    the extra ram will be very useful if you like to open multiple image and do layers etc
    Or if you are into video

  13. #13
    Senior Member Canew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    2,229

    Default Re: Intel® Core™2 Quad: 45 nm vs. 65 nm technology.

    Quote Originally Posted by lightrules View Post
    hmmm...........if its $300 more, then CPU1 is a better buy, since with that money, you could add more ram on your own...maybe more than 4Gb RAM ???

    the extra ram will be very useful if you like to open multiple image and do layers etc
    Or if you are into video
    Noted lightrules, will check out the pricing updates during COMEX this weekend. If it remains the same ($300 difference), maybe I will hold back my purchase till SITEX at end of November.

  14. #14

    Default Re: Intel® Core™2 Quad: 45 nm vs. 65 nm technology.

    well, by November, Intel might have some more goodness coming up... the Nehalem based processors... based on a new processor architecture that significantly improves performance... technically, they are only gonna launch the workstation/server processors but who knows if they will throw in a mainstream processor or not... and if they do, then older processors would be pushed down the price scale

  15. #15
    Senior Member Canew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    2,229

    Default Re: Intel® Core™2 Quad: 45 nm vs. 65 nm technology.

    Thanks for your comments, theRBK. See la. See the COMEX how and then at most, I will wait till SITEX (end Nov.) to get the desktop.

    Just that I am not savvy enough to get a DIY rig. Worry that there could be problems. Any suggestions from the resident IT gurus here?

  16. #16

    Default Re: Intel® Core™2 Quad: 45 nm vs. 65 nm technology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Canew View Post
    Thanks for your comments, theRBK. See la. See the COMEX how and then at most, I will wait till SITEX (end Nov.) to get the desktop.

    Just that I am not savvy enough to get a DIY rig. Worry that there could be problems. Any suggestions from the resident IT gurus here?
    You could go to Fuwell and get a rig there, or check the HWZ recommended configs to find something within your budget.
    Alpha

  17. #17
    Senior Member Canew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    2,229

    Default Re: Intel® Core™2 Quad: 45 nm vs. 65 nm technology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    You could go to Fuwell and get a rig there, or check the HWZ recommended configs to find something within your budget.
    Rashkae, thanks for the recommendation.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Intel® Core™2 Quad: 45 nm vs. 65 nm technology.

    45nm = cooler + lower power consumption + more room for overclocking (generally)

    but the question is do you need a Quad core? I bought a core 2 duo when it was first released because the benchmarks were just unbelievable. Only after that did i realise you don't really need so much processing power to surf net, watch movies, msn etc. i do encode videos in to mp4 to put in to my psp but i can eaily do the same with a slower processor just wait 10 mins more for it to finish lor.... Even when playing Oblivion & Quake 4 the money would have been better spent on a better graphics card.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Intel® Core™2 Quad: 45 nm vs. 65 nm technology.

    Quote Originally Posted by eosdigital View Post
    By the way, bigger cache does not neccessary means better performance.

    As an example, a new-generation Penryn Core 2 with 3MB L2 cache can already outperform the older generation Merom Core 2 with 4MB L2's
    The statement would hold true, though, if you assume all other things remain constant. ie: a 2.4GHz Conroe with 4MB L2 Cache would outperform a 2.4GHz Allendale with 2MB L2 Cache since both processors use the same fabrication (65nm), and microarchitecture revision.

    Anyway to answer TS question, it isn't worth it to jump to 45nm now. I believe in Q4 2008 Intel is releasing Nehalem, which is a totally new chip design altogether, requiring a different socket, Northbridge and DDR3 RAM. In other words anything you purchase now will not only be (very quickly) obsoleted, but also be electrically incompatible with technology in a few weeks time.

    On the bright side, Nehalem is purported to be as big a jump in performance like from Netburst to Core microarchitecture back in the day.

  20. #20
    Senior Member Canew's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Tampines
    Posts
    2,229

    Default Re: Intel® Core™2 Quad: 45 nm vs. 65 nm technology.

    Quote Originally Posted by zj2000 View Post
    45nm = cooler + lower power consumption + more room for overclocking (generally)

    but the question is do you need a Quad core? I bought a core 2 duo when it was first released because the benchmarks were just unbelievable. Only after that did i realise you don't really need so much processing power to surf net, watch movies, msn etc. i do encode videos in to mp4 to put in to my psp but i can eaily do the same with a slower processor just wait 10 mins more for it to finish lor.... Even when playing Oblivion & Quake 4 the money would have been better spent on a better graphics card.
    Quote Originally Posted by astrise View Post
    The statement would hold true, though, if you assume all other things remain constant. ie: a 2.4GHz Conroe with 4MB L2 Cache would outperform a 2.4GHz Allendale with 2MB L2 Cache since both processors use the same fabrication (65nm), and microarchitecture revision.

    Anyway to answer TS question, it isn't worth it to jump to 45nm now. I believe in Q4 2008 Intel is releasing Nehalem, which is a totally new chip design altogether, requiring a different socket, Northbridge and DDR3 RAM. In other words anything you purchase now will not only be (very quickly) obsoleted, but also be electrically incompatible with technology in a few weeks time.

    On the bright side, Nehalem is purported to be as big a jump in performance like from Netburst to Core microarchitecture back in the day.
    Thanks to zj2000 & astrise, for the insightful comments.

    From what astrise have mentioned, maybe I will wait till SITEX to see what is being offered. If not, maybe postpone my purchase till Mar. 2009. (IT Show)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •